|
Ridley Scott's 1982 masterpiece Blade Runner featured Rutger Hauer as replicant Roy Batty on a quest for "more life". He paid a visit to the genetic engineer responsible for designing his eyes, and one of the odd things Roy said in a surreal conversation was, "Yes. Questions..." Most law students do not seek more life from the hands of men. However, Roy Batty's remark seems highly appropriate after the February 25th meeting on the law school report commissioned by the trustees. Dr. June Aprille, University of Richmond provost, took about 45 minutes to discuss the findings and recommendations of this report, in addition to answering questions posed by several students in regards to this report. Dr. Aprille "works closely with Dean Pagan and the law school faculty" to implement the recommendations of the trustees' task force, and also heads both the Reynolds/Alcoa utilization committee and the arrangements for replacing Dean Pagan when his term as dean expires. This
task force worked for six months, and had two primary charges: 2. Identify programs and activities to generate needed revenue, in order to fund other programs and reduce the law school deficit without raising tuition. With respect to the first charge, the task force came up with three points: Increase the ethnic & geographic diversity of the student body, improve awareness of T. C. Williams ("TCW") outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and attract additional scholars who can bring a national reputation to chairs here at TCW. The task force concluded for the second charge that TCW needs to generate more revenue in order to increase the funding in student scholarships, faculty salaries, and incentives, presumably for the faculty. Several methods were offered as means of reaching this seemingly laudable goal. After all, it is difficult to oppose the chance of increased scholarship funding, as long as it is applied to all TCW students and not just used to sweeten the deal for a select few. If additional revenue is to come without a tuition increase, then it must originate elsewhere. The task force, knowing this, commissioned research on preferred alternatives that would generate the desired revenue. The sample population for this survey included attorneys from Central, Northern, and Eastern Virginia, students taking LSAT preparatory classes, and TCW students. A questionable omission in the sample population were TCW graduates in Western Virginia, but this was not discussed. Little to no support was found among the survey population for an LL.M. degree program or a primarily Internet-based juris doctor program. While it is seemingly understandable that an electronic law school program is not necessarily attractive to a group of people who have all slaved in uncomfortable seats while trying to understand the nuances of future interests, it is less apparent why an LL.M. program would not be attractive. The task force did, however, find several attractive propositions. The first was a part-time juris doctor program, which will be the subject of a future study. Other recommendations (including some overlap with the first charge of the task force) were as follows: An academic success program; niche identification of TCW in order to attract interested students ("Richmond Law, the national leader in hot coffee burns litigation", for a ridiculous example); "academic centers of excellence" directed by faculty members; and a strategic plan for job placement of our graduates beyond the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Eastern Seaboard. Of course, the academic success program is already a reality, and is ably helmed by Professor Emmeline Paulette Reeves. Provost Aprille expressed support for the program, and indicated that some improvements would be made. The niche identification of TCW is perhaps tied to the LL.M. question. TCW would have to find a marketable and meaningful topic to sponsor the very specific LL.M. program in, and there are already a host of well-established LL.M. programs in the United States. It was not immediately clear what the academic centers of excellence were; some brief mention was made of them as a response to a student question, but there was no substantive discussion of them. The strategic plan for placing students outside of Virginia and the East Coast sounds remarkably similar to what is ostensibly the charge of the Career Services office. The question-and-answer period saw occasional periods of contention, with a significant amount of deflection or deferral in the answers. The results of this portion are summarized below: -A steering committee (including 5 faculty members) will be charged with developing a strategic plan to implement the part-time juris doctorate program. -The recommendations of the task force report are unrelated to the proposed Alcoa move. Provost Aprille considered these two matters to be essentially separate items, and she deferred to Timothy Coggins on substantive Alcoa concerns. Mr. Coggins noted that the report of the Alcoa committee was due in late April. -Any
proposed plan with regards to a TCW part-time program must be
found viable by the University itself, in order for University
funds to be allocated. These funds would be, among other things,
spent on attracting new faculty to augment a currently understrength
faculty. The part-time program is dependent upon the attraction
of additional faculty. -Provost Aprille did not know whether part-time admissions standards would mirror the full-time standards. -There is no timeline for any of the recommendations to be implemented; however, it will take time. The part-time program could not be implemented "overnight", or even perhaps before 2004. -The search for a new dean will not impact the Alcoa question and its timing. Provost Aprille noted that there was an offset in the decision time, and that the Alcoa committee's report was due in late April, whereas the dean search would not be underway until after that report was issued. She did not know if postponing the dean search until the move was complete. She further noted that the University would be "remiss" in hiring a dean whose vision of the law school was 180 degrees different than that of the students. -The decision of the Alcoa task force is not final. The University of Richmond, not the law school, will make the ultimate decision of whether TCW journeys to Broad Street. The task force's input is of import, however. Once the University decides (assuming TCW's assent) to make the Alcoa move, there can not be a reversal based solely upon opinion. -Any revenue generated by the part-time program will not be used to decrease full-time class sizes or to broaden class selection. The University views the part-time program as a "revenue generator", whose profits might be used for scholarship purposes. -TCW is not paying its "fair share" of allocated costs from the University of Richmond, but yet TCW does not operate in a deficit. Provost Aprille asked, perhaps rhetorically, "Why should the University subsidize the law school?" To this student body, the answer is probably obvious. She followed her question by noting that the better the reputation of the law school, the more tangible the support for a law school "subsidy" would be. -Any TCW presence at Alcoa will be shared with non-profit agencies operating in the Richmond area. The specific term used was, "sequestered", but students will not be the only ones using that facility. However, Provost Aprille pointed out that any prospective non-academic tenants at Alcoa will be screened on the basis of compatibility with the mission of the law school. -There is no secret plan at the University level against the law school. One student questioned a prior commitment to maintaining the current size of the student body, when the part-time program currently favored would do exactly that. Provost Aprille distinguished that commitment as controlling only the full-time student body, of which the part-time students are by definition excluded. She further noted that the full-time students were considered the ‘jewel' of the law school. Then first-year class representative Bob Kidd rounded out the questions by quoting from the full task force report, which cited a concern among the survey population that a part-time program would detract from the reputation of the law school. He then asked Provost Aprille to offer her view on which interest was more important, the reputation of the law school or the revenue generation. She responded by saying that she couldn't tell, but that both should be done. Kidd questioned if there had been a prioritizing of any sorts, and Aprille replied that the two goals were considered equal, and that the reputation of the law school was critical. Kidd retorted that the report contradicted her remarks, because it, in his words, favored revenue over reputation. She ended her remarks by noting that the report Kidd referred to was not the final report, and that the research contained in the report was not "confirming". Additionally, she stated that while there may be some trade-off, the generation of revenue would build the full-time degree's reputation. She did not consider revenue generation and reputation enhancement to be two mutually exclusive goals. One reasonable student position is expressed as, "If you're going to do something, do it right. If it can't be done right, then don't do it." The meeting with the provost generated more questions than it answered, and perhaps provided a glimpse of the otherwise mysterious workings of academic administration. While there may be no secret plan to end the law school, it is difficult for the average student to feel entirely comfortable while unaccountable and perhaps unaddressable officials decide the fate of the law school. A part-time program may not be objectionable. In fact, it very well could serve to place our name on a wider scale, and improve the value of a full-time Richmond degree. Yes, questions, indeed. |
Previous
Page 
Next Page